Wipe That Smile Off His Face

Many of the Muslims who come to live in the West must daily shake their heads in amazement, unable to believe how stupid Westerners are to not only give away their wealth and paradise, but actually persecute the few who dare object. Said Muslims come here as conquerors, and our political leaders, instead of defending the interests of the people they were elected to represent, provide them with every conceivable aid to expedite the conquest. True, even the traitorous Labour government of Tony Blair found it within itself to jail or deport some of the most notorious cases; but such action, when it has been taken at all, always came late, was limited in scope, and struck one as cosmetic and expedient in character: the deeper problem – government sponsorship of foolish immigration policies, political correctness, and multiculturalism, which began and encouraged the progressive Islamisation of our society – remained untreated, and is still in fact consciously and willfully compounded through its promotion, financing, legalisation, and court enforcement, year after year after year. It is no wonder these would-be Muslim conquerors hold us in contempt.

One notorious example in the United Kingdom is Abu Hamza al-Masri, an Egyptian-born Muslim cleric and former imam of the North London Central Mosque (back then known as the Finsbury Park Mosque), who is currently serving a seven-year sentence for inciting racial hatred and soliciting the murder of non-Muslims. He is the man who once declared before his congregation that “Killing of the Kaffir [non-believers -- that is, us] for any reason you can say it is OK, even if there is no reason for it”; who once called on his followers to poison, ambush, and kill non-believers; who preached, “You must have a stand with your heart, with your tongue, with your money, with your hand, with your sword, with your Kalashnikov. Don’t ask shall I do this, just do it”. He is the man who once said to his followers,

It is a time to prove that you are not just here in the West for the money pot, just to take and not give anything … When you fight, you kill, you don’t fight to negotiate or show off.

He is the man who thinks, “There is no drop of liquid loved by Allah more than the liquid of blood,” and who informed his congregation that Muslims “are people who like to drink blood and we are addicted to blood.” He is the man who says that the aim of jihad is to humiliate non-believers, claim victory, and convert them to Islam; and who adds, “Now look at the suicide bombs. Does it fulfill all these purposes. Yes all of them.” He is the man who foresees “[t]he Khalifa sitting in the White House, ruling from there like the Prophet Mohammed said that Allah… told him” -- told him “that the whole Earth, it will be for Muslims, booty for Islam. This is a promise from Allah.” He is the naturalized “British citizen” who once described Britain as “like the inside of a toilet,” and who says to Muslims, “if you respect the law of the Kaffir by your heart, you are finished, you are not a Muslim anymore…”

Born in 1958, Abu Hamza arrived in Britain on a student visa in 1979. He secured his British citizenship through marriage in 1981, benefiting from naturalization laws that were in force during Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government. When, four years later his marriage faltered on account of a fling with a prostitute, he decided to dedicate himself to Islam. He fought with the Muslims in Bosnia during the early 1990s, and subsequently worked with the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, where in 1993 he lost an eye and both his hands.

In 1997, the year Tony Blair’s Labour government came to power, he became imam at the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, which soon became a cesspool of jihadism. That same year he praised the murder of 58 European tourists in Luxor (see here). In 1999 his seventeen-year-old son was sentenced by a Yemeni court to three years in prison following the bomb plot trial, where eight Muslim “Britons” were found guilty of forming an armed gang and planning to bomb the British Consulate in an anti-Western campaign. And in 2001 he praised the September 11 attacks. When the police finally raided Abu Hamza’s base, and the Charity Commission finally dismissed him from his post in 2003, he carried on preaching outside the mosque, surrounded by masked jihadists, until his long-overdue arrest in 2004. This was after the police discovered chemical warfare protection suits, blank-firing pistols, a stun gun, CS spray, a gas mask, handcuffs, hunting knives, and a walkie-talkie, which detectives believed were used in U.K.-based terrorist training camps. The police also found 100 stolen or forged passports and identity documents, laminating equipment, credit cards, and chequebooks, hidden under rugs and concealed above ceilings. Since the conclusion of his trial in 2006, Abu Hamza has been fighting extradition to the United States, where he is charged with “the hostage-taking of 16 [W]estern tourists in Yemen in December 1998” (which resulted in three British deaths), and with attempting to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregon in 1999.

This is all well known and has been reported extensively in the media. Why, then, am I rehashing the story now? Because it turns out that last Thursday the European Court of Human Rights ordered a halt to the extradition proceedings (already approved in 2007) on the basis that American prisons might breach Abu Hamza’s human rights.

Yes. You read that correctly. Apparently, the judges at Strassbourg think he still has human rights, and in a cynical effort to save his skin, Abu Hamza is all too happy to abuse high-minded Western principles that he would otherwise like to see destroyed. Moreover, he, who in their place would probably have him shot or decapitated, evidently considers our legislators soft and stupid enough to grant him a reprieve, even now, despite the obviousness of his mockery.

The main problem I have is not so much that there is an Abu Hamza, or that there are many others just like him, seeking to come here and other countries in Europe, leech from our welfare state, train terrorists, and agitate, work, and organize Muslim jihadists to take what is rightfully ours. The main problem I have is that they are allowed to do so, and have been allowed to do so, year after year after year, for the benefit of none –- that the politicians and bureaucrats who fund themselves with my (and your) tax money have made it possible for the likes of him to live and conduct their activities in this country –- at tax-payers’ expense and at no Briton’s behest.

Every time I travel I am asked by airport security to take off my shoes, so that they may be scanned for plastic explosives –- this is because of the abovementioned Richard Reid, who worshiped at Abu Hamza’s mosque; and because Abu Hamza was able to draw from a large pool of locally-based worshippers. And this is but one of many indignities, delays, inconveniences, and expenses we have been saddled with. Did I forget to mention that Tony Blair’s Labour government -– one I never voted for –- took money from me and gave it to Abu Hamza every month, for years, in the form of disability benefits? What is more, Tony Blair’s Labour government also took money from me, every year, for years, to fund the 1,800-capacity mosque, which was and remains a registered charity, and which was used to run training sessions with AK47s.

Worse still, it seems, according to various reports, that there was a tacit pact between the British authorities and radical Islamists operating in the country, whereby the “jihadists were granted free reign so long as they did not attack Britain” (see here, and also another report here). Abu Hamza told the court prosecuting him in 2006 about this deal. The Times Onlinereported in February that year that MI5 had told one of its informants at Abu Hamza’s mosque (apparently the latter was riddled with infiltrators and informants) that MI5 thought he was a harmless clown.

Perhaps MI5 really thought that.

But when I read in The Independent that the 2003 police raid came only “after much agonizing at the highest levels of Scotland Yard and the Home office," when I read that the raid was considered a “controversial” and an “extreme step,” when I read that police officers deemed it imperative to take “every precaution to make sure as far as [they] could that [they] did not act in an insensitive manner,” when I read that they even took with them Muslim officers to “advise on appropriate behaviour” during the raid, when I read these things, I do wonder whether the tardiness of the British authorities in dealing with murderous terrorist activity on home soil, being aided and organised with tax payers’ money, right in the nation’s capital, had something to do with fear of offending Muslims. It is not too far-fetched an idea, especially when one considers that they are probably justified, having seen some years ago the violence Western Muslim immigrants are capable of after a Danish illustrator, living in his own country, drew a cartoon commenting on their prophet.

Another likely reason for this fear is the large and growing Islamic presence in the country.

The North London Central Mosque is not the only one in the United Kingdom: there are, in fact, approximately 1,500 of them, serving a population of over 2.4 million Muslims. These are mostly of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Indian origin, with the greater portion of them being in the under-40s group. According to the Office of National Statistics, between 2004 and 2008 the Muslim population grew by half a million – ten times faster than the rest of society. Youth, combined with high numbers, high fertility, and a huge worldwide population of 1.57 billion, makes them a formidable force indeed.

It is easy to laugh at politicians and bureaucrats cowering behind their desks, worried about incurring Muslim wrath. It is easy to laugh at them, knowing that they are in a predicament of their own making. Because it is they who encouraged their future Muslim conquerors to come and settle in Europe. We can perhaps forgive the likes of William Henry Quilliam, a Liverpool solicitor and Muslim convert, who founded the Muslim Institute and the Liverpool mosque in the late nineteenth century; or Lord Headly (Al-Haj El-Farooq), another convert, who established the British Muslim Society in 1914; or even King George VI, who donated land for a mosque in return for a site in Cairo for an Anglican cathedral – these are examples of individual inquisitiveness and of the normal cultural exchange between nations, which, in the case of Islam, goes back to the Middle Ages. But we cannot forgive the successive Labour and Conservative governments of the 1950s onwards, which, without ever consulting the electorate on the issue, initiated a process of large population transfers, which in turn took the Muslim demographic in the United Kingdom from 23,000 in 1951, to 1.5 million in 1997. And we especially cannot forgive the Labour government of Tony Blair, which orchestrated a secret conspiracy – finally uncovered last year – to make Britain more multicultural, allowing yearly legal immigration to more than quintuple between the middle of 1997 and the middle of 2005, while being singularly relaxed about illegal immigration. It took 117 years to go from the first mosque in 1860, to the first 1,000 in 1997; but it only took the Labour government 10 years to add another 500. That same Labour government also introduced Muslims into the legislature: in the 1997 election, Mohammed Sarwar became the first Muslim member of parliament; and the following year, Lord Nazir of Rotherham and Lady Uddin were appointed to the House of Lords, becoming the first Muslim peers. 1997 was also the year the British Muslim Council was founded; among many other things, it seeks to increase political representation for Muslims in Britain. By 2007 the Labour government had appointed Britain’s first Muslim Minister. This was Shahid Malik, who in a speech at the October 2008 Global Peace and Unity conference, expressed the view that there ought to be more than double the existing number of Muslim MPs in parliament, and voiced his hope to see a Muslim Prime Minister in Britain within a generation.

What no doubt baffles the likes of Abu Hamza and his followers, here and elsewhere, is the fact that, on the one hand, the politicians and the bureaucrats have been giving Britain, and Europe, and the West away to foreign invaders, against the wishes of the people; while on the other, the people itself have been perplexingly supine in the face of this outrage, too scared of being called names to sweep the traitors from power and defend what is theirs, despite being overwhelmingly against Islamisation.

Is it any surprise, then, that Abu Hamza mocks the West by claiming, even now, that a long sentence in an American prison is a violation of his human rights? He worries about a less than comfortable prison facility, but “Killing [non-believers] for any reason you can say it is OK, even if there is no reason for it.” Blowing me into a million pieces is OK; blowing my wife into a million pieces is OK; blowing you into a million pieces is OK; blowing members of your family into a million pieces while aboard a flight on their way to a meeting, a conference, or a holiday destination is OK -– even if you oppose the policies of our political establishment. It is OK for him to kill for no reason at all, and he wants us to fret about the level of comfort in his prison cell.

I am sure there are many ordinary folk out there who take a rather different view, and would prefer a less kindly sentence –- one that begins with “Line them up against the wall…” Indeed, it is possible that Abu Hamza cannot believe Westerners are so reluctant to do what he himself would do in their place, and take a leaf from the book of the Catholic Monarchs, Queen Isabella I of Castille and King Ferdinand II of Aragon, and revisit the triumph of 1492.

Abu Hamza is correct to judge that there is something gravely wrong with our modern culture, particularly when we even have an Anglican Bishop calling for Shariah to be accommodated within the British legal system. For now, however, until we replace our existing political leadership with one prepared to do what it takes to safeguard our interests, even if it offends Muslims, the best we can hope for is Abu Hamza spending the rest of his life in the company of his former chums and co-religionists – the likes of Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah, of al-Qaeda’s Operation Bojinka; Mahmud Abouhalima, Ahmed Ajaj, Nidal Ayyad, El Sayyid Nosair, Mohammed A. Salameh, Ramzi Yousef, and Eyad Ismail, of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, the al-Quaeda conspirator and would-be assassin; Iyman Faris, of the NYC landmark plot; Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, the “Canadian” terrorist; Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-Owhali and Mohammed Odeh, of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing; Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad, the would-be al-Qaeda financier; Richard Reid, al-Qaeda’s would-be “Shoe Bomber”; Ahmed Ressam, of the 2000 millennium attack plots; and, of course, James Ujaama, who with Abu Hamza attempted to set up the abovementioned terrorist training camp in Oregon.

The terrorist attacks we have been suffering are said by the terrorists themselves to be a response to Western policy in the Middle East –- a pro-Zionist policy, riddled with double standards, that humiliates and oppresses Muslims in the region, and that continues despite Israel’s numerous human rights abuses and violations of international law. Every Muslim I have ever known has taken this view, suggesting it is not restricted to violent Islamist extremists. The explanation given for our political establishment’s support for such a policy is a familiar one. In the words of Abu Hamza:

They all know their roles as they are slaves of the Jews.

They hate the Jews more than we do. But the Jews own them. They own everything they have and they own their fantasies as well and they have a file on each one of them that could embarrass them in front of the people if he does not follow what he tells them.

Certainly, the situation in the West is likely to get ever more interesting if predictions of an Islamic Europe by century’s end come true. As indigenous Europeans are replaced by a non-European Muslim majority in our continent, we can expect this change in complexion to be reflected in Europe’s parliaments and national governments. With this will come, inevitably, legislative changes, historical revisionism, and different policies, reflecting Muslim sensibilities, concerns, and aspirations. Eventually, Europe will converge with North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia -- in every respect. We will eat halal meat, pigs will roam the countryside, cathedrals will become mosques, the Koran will be mandatory in every school, we will name our children Mohammed, and the call for prayer will be heard emanating from thousands of minarets across every village, town, and city, five times a day. The surviving and ever-shrinking White European minority -- foreigners in their own traditional homeland, most likely impoverished, and no longer masters of their own destiny -- will have to abide by the rules of their Muslim masters, cleaning their toilets and cooking their meals. (Many will be Muslims themselves, in mixed-race marriages, with women forced to undergo genital mutilation, wear burqas, share husbands, and suffer death by stoning if found adulterous.) And, once Whites become extinct, sometime in the next century, they will be remembered ignominiously in history and anthropology textbooks as a plague that swept the Earth, a degenerate species of human, too weak, too cowardly, and too stupid to resist the force of Islam.

It does not have to end that way, of course, but writing a different ending -- indeed having the right to write it in the first place -- begins by developing the ability to inspire the type of pride, courage, and self-discipline that attracts so many to the discipline of Islam; it begins by offering an idea that gives life meaning, that makes ordinary folk feel part of a greater cause that is worth fighting for, that makes fear of being called names seem silly, laughable, and ridiculous -- that does all this the way Islam does for its followers. (Do they ever worry about being called "Islamofascists"?)

In other words, if there is something wrong with our modern culture, a different future begins with developing a positive counter-culture. It begins with this, because our opponents will only respect us when we are strong, and summoning strength requires the kind of meaningful inspiration that comes from a vibrant cultural movement. Steeped in their religion, Muslims are inspired by the notion that they are fighting for a greater cause, so many think nothing of becoming jihadists and blowing themselves up in town centres; ordinary White folk, on the other hand, have allowed generations of Freudo-Marxist intellectuals to progressively estrange them from their own roots, so they only have material comfort and the opinion of their peers left to care about -- and these, because they are dependent on systemic approval and are therefore precarious, is precisely what keeps these White folk meek and quiet, even in the face of blatant theft, slander, and abuse. With our unique talents as a people; with our intelligence; our wealth; our art; our numbers; and our long, rich, and glorious history, it is not as if we lack the materials to grow a counter-cultural revolution. I believe we are involved in one presently, but it is still in its infancy and it lacks forward vision -- currently, our side is excessively preoccupied with the present and enamoured with the past, and not sufficiently concerned with imagining what the future needs to look like.

In addition to criticising what is bad and remembering what was good, we need also to express our urges, dreams, and aspirations. This is a pre-requisite to achieving legislative change: we have seen from the efforts of the Left in this area that legislation is not only about maintaining law and order, as conservatives like to view it, but also about building a new society. If we succeed in our endeavours, the Abu Hamzas of this world will no longer be mocking our laws and our politicians, thinking us weak and pathetic and begging for the bullets of their Kalashnikovs -- they, like our politicians, will be singing an altogether different tune. Because then there will be no judges in the European Court of Human Rights putting the comfort of foreign convicted Muslim terrorists ahead of the rights of European people. And the Abu Hamzas of this world will know it, and respect us for it.